This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. By using the site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our privacy policy to learn more.

Latest Stories

New IRS Appeals Process Starts Sept. 2

Starting Sept. 2, the IRS Office of Appeals is changing
the way it handles appeals to examination decisions. Under
the new Appeals Judicial Approach and Culture (AJAC)
project, appeals officers are “no longer going to be
examiners or investigators,” Appeals Team Manager Philip
A. Oyoto told preparers at the IRS National Tax Forum
(Aug. 19–21) in National Harbor, Md.

In a July 2 memo to Appeals staff, John
V. Cardone, the IRS’s director of Policy, Quality and Case
Support, stated that the program reinforces “Appeals’
quasi-judicial approach to the way it handles cases, with
the goal of enhancing internal and external customer
perceptions of a fair, impartial and independent Office of
Appeals.”

According to the memo, Appeals will not
generally return cases to Examination for further
development. However, Cardone outlined certain
circumstances as grounds for returning a case, including
(but not limited to):

The case is missing
a protest, or the protest, when required, fails to set
forth the taxpayer’s position, lacks detail, or fails to
meet the requirements of Publication 5, Your Appeal
Rights and How to Prepare a Protest If You Don’t
Agree (January 1999);

Some action must
be taken or some event must occur before Appeals can
adequately consider the case;

Technical
advice was pending at the time of the referral;

Appeals discovers potential fraud, malfeasance, or
misrepresentation of a material fact; or

The taxpayer provides new information or evidence.

What this new approach means is that
Appeals will only hear cases that are fully developed;
hearing officers will not do their own investigations and
will send any new issues raised or evidence submitted by
the taxpayer during the appeal back to the originating
function for consideration.

A fully developed case
is defined in the memo as one that “has all pertinent
evidence well documented with an easy to follow audit
trail. Generally, the case contains the evidence needed to
support the adjustments proposed in the [revenue agent’s
report].” In what Oyoto described as a big change, Appeals
will attempt to settle a case based on factual hazards
(i.e., uncertainty as to what facts a court would find to
be true) if it is not fully developed and the taxpayer has
provided no new information or evidence.

Similarly,
the memo instructs staff that if the taxpayer or
representative “unreasonably delays the process by
intentionally submitting new information or raising new
issues multiple times,” the case will not be sent to
Examination for more analysis—the officer can make a
determination based on his or her assessment of the
factual hazards of litigation.

State audits of abandoned and unclaimed property (AUP) have exploded in recent years. This report outlines the escheat process, common types of AUP, how different states are handling it and how companies can plan for potential audits and liabilities.

Don’t get lost in the fog of legislative changes, developing tax issues, and newly evolving tax planning strategies. Tax Section membership will help you stay up to date and make your practice more efficient.